Election Disadvantage
Download 1.8 Mb.
|
UniquenessObama Wins 1NCObama will win the election --- major indicators and polls point to a victory.West, 7/12/2012 (Paul – Tribune Washington Bureau, Obama holds ‘significant lead’ over Romney in new national poll, The Olympian, p. http://www.theolympian.com/2012/07/12/2171777/obama-holds-significant-lead-over.html) With the election still four months away, President Barack Obama holds "a significant lead" over Republican challenger Mitt Romney, according to a new Pew Research Center poll released Thursday. The national survey, completed July 9, showed Obama outpacing Romney by 50 percent to 43 percent. That's a more substantial gap than most recent surveys have registered, but Obama has held at least a small lead in earlier polling by Pew. The independent polling operation said there had been "no clear trend in either candidate's support" since Romney secured the GOP nomination in early spring. When it comes to fixing the economy - the top issue of the campaign - "Romney has not seized the advantage," Pew's analysis concluded. "In fact, he has lost ground on this issue over the past month." Of potentially greater significance than the overall national figures, Obama continues to lead Romney in battleground states. In the 12 states considered most competitive at this point, the president holds a seven percentage-point edge, 51 to 44, the Pew survey found. A Wall Street Journal survey, released late last month, also showed Obama with an eight-point advantage in battleground states. The national figures found no overall improvement in Romney's standing with voters over the past two months, a period in which Obama has attempted to keep his rival on the defensive with negative ad attacks on his business record and personal wealth. Some Republicans outside the Romney camp have become increasingly jittery about what they regard as insufficient progress by their party's unofficial nominee against a vulnerable incumbent. As the campaign heads into mid-summer, a period in which public attention will be diverted, at least in part, by the Olympic Games in London, Romney has failed thus far to capitalize on deep voter dissatisfaction with the way things are going in the country. At the same time, Obama's job-approval rating has ticked up slightly. In the latest poll, it stood at 50 percent, the first time Pew found that he had reached positive territory on that score since March. Voters were asked which candidate was best suited to fix the U.S. economy, and by a six-point margin they favored Obama over Romney, 48 percent to 42 percent. That's a sharp turnaround from June, when Romney held the advantage on that question by eight points, 49 percent to 41 percent. The Pew poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. A similar shift was reflected among independent voters, a prized target for both candidates, who are now almost evenly divided on who would best improve the economy. In June, Romney enjoyed a 13-point edge among independents on that question. The latest survey, like most polling at this stage of the campaign, did not attempt to narrow the contest down to likely voters. Obama's lead, Pew found, stemmed from the fact that more voters currently identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans, and that virtually identical proportions of each say they will back their party's nominee. Put another way, the results of the survey are yet a further indication that voter mobilization will be crucial in determining the winner of this year's election. Obama has increased his lead among younger voters - historically the least likely to turn out on Election Day. It's now 24 percentage points, down from 34 points in the 2008 election. Independent voters - who typically decide close elections - remain split, with 46 percent favoring Romney and 45 percent supporting Obama, a statistical tie. Obama Win – 60%-55%Obama will win – his chances are as high as 60%.Sheridan 7-19 (Greg, Foreign Editor, The Australian, OBAMA'S POLITICAL JUDO WILL DELIVER A KNOCKOUT, lexisnexis, dw: 7-19-2012, da: 7-21-2012, lido) HERE'S the dope. Barack Obama will be re-elected president in November, beating the Republican challenger, Mitt Romney. But it will be a tight race. My guess is the margin will be quite slim. Obama will win in the way George W. Bush beat John Kerry in 2004, and for many of the same reasons. I am in America at the 20th anniversary meeting of the Australian American Leadership Dialogue.. It is a great time to be in Washington, because this is a very live election. Romney still has an excellent chance of winning. Indeed, all the preconditions for an Obama defeat are there. But I rate Obama's chances as about 55 to 60 per cent, and Romney's at 40 to 45 per cent. Obama Win – Approval RatingObama will win --- presidential polling is a good indicator.Constitution Daily, 7/20/2012 (Historic poll trends give edge to Obama, p. http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/07/historic-poll-trends-give-edge-to-obama/) A review of presidential polling data back to 1948 shows that Barack Obama’s edge in the latest Gallup poll is a positive sign for his re-election chances. But in two past recent elections, candidates with bigger leads than Obama lost hotly contested elections, after their opponents used hard-hitting tactics. Since 1948, candidates who led in early to mid-July polling have won 13 of 16 presidential races in November. Two of the winning candidates who trailed in the mid-summer polls were George W. Bush in 2004 and George H.W. Bush in 1988. Both candidates used aggressive ad campaigns to capitalize on missteps by front runners John Kerry and Michael Dukakis to win the fall election. Recently, some GOP supporters have urged Mitt Romney to adopt harsher attacks on Obama, including more ads that attack Obama’s character and policies. In the most recent Gallup poll, President Obama holds a 47 percent to 45 percent lead over challenger Romney. The third candidate to overcome a mid-summer frontrunner was Harry Truman, who used an old-fashioned grassroots campaign to get past Thomas Dewey in 1948. In two of those three cases, George W. Bush and Truman had “the power of the pulpit” as the incumbent president as an extra way to generate campaign publicity. Also, in 1988 George H.W. Bush was the sitting vice president. ROMNEY MAY NEED TO FIGHT TOUGH But if history is any guide , Romney will have to fight his way past the mid-summer frontrunner. Obama will win – stronger than his approval ratingsSilver 7/12 (Silver, Nate, runs the Five Thirty Eight NY Times Blog, 07/12/12, Five Thirty Eight NY Times Blog, Why Obama may be stronger than his approval rating, http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/why-obama-may-be-stronger-than-his-approval-ratings/) There is a small but reasonably persistent gap between President Obama’s net approval ratings and his head-to-head polls against Mitt Romney. Whereas Mr. Obama’s approval ratings have been almost exactly breaking even for most of the past few months — in fact, they’re very slightly underwater now according to the Real Clear Politics average — he has more often than not enjoyed a slight lead in head-to-head polls against Mr. Romney. Liberals and conservatives tend to interpret this evidence in different ways. For liberals, it may be taken as a sign that Mr. Romney is an especially weak candidate — enough so that many voters who are on the fence about Mr. Obama’s job performance, and even a few who disapprove of it, will be willing to vote for Mr. Obama if Mr. Romney is the alternative. The claim has often been made in recent weeks, for instance (in my view, based on relatively speculative evidence), that Mr. Obama’s attacks on Mr. Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital may have damaged Mr. Romney. Conservatives instead sometimes argue that this is a sign that Mr. Obama has some softness in his numbers. As voters become more engaged with the campaign, Mr. Romney may have a bit of wind at his back if he is able to keep the focus on Mr. Obama’s job performance; the head-to-head polls could fall more in line with Mr. Obama’s approval ratings. Neither of these views is irrational. In support of the liberal position, my research suggests that there can be some predictable-seeming differences between a president’s net approval rating and the result he actually realizes on Election Day, based in part on “candidate quality” factors related to his opponent. For instance, opponents who have especially “extreme” ideologies (who are perceived as being very liberal or very conservative) may allow a president to over-perform his approval ratings, while challengers who are viewed as moderates may get the benefit of the doubt from voters. Elections are perhaps mostly a referendum on the incumbent, but they are not purely so. On the other hand, in support of the conservative position, my research suggests that approval ratings may have some predictive power even once you are also accounting for head-to-head polls, especially early in the campaign. Both of these views, however, leave aside an intriguing piece of evidence. That evidence is Mr. Obama’s favorability ratings. They are net-positive right now, as they have been throughout most of his presidency. Right now, the Real Clear Politics average shows 50.6 percent of Americans with a favorable view of Mr. Obama, versus 45.1 percent with an unfavorable one. That contrasts with his approval ratings, which now show 46.8 percent as approving his job performance and 48.7 percent as disapproving it. In other words, there is a small slice of the electorate, about 4 percent, that has a favorable view of Mr. Obama, but does not approve of his job performance. Given how close the election is, the way they behave in November could be decisive. If the election is a referendum on Mr. Obama based on his approval ratings, it’s going to be very close. He may be a slight underdog, especially since some of the approval ratings polls are of adults or registered voters, which are generally a point or two more favorable to the Democratic candidate than those of likely voters. However, if it’s a referendum based on Mr. Obama’s favorability ratings, his net-positive score (plus 5.5) makes him look like the favorite. Is there evidence on whether approval ratings or favorability ratings are a better indicator of a president’s re-election chances? Actually, there’s not very much of it. Favorability ratings have received much less academic study than approval ratings. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, the two sets of ratings are normally extremely close to each other. Unless you need extreme precision for something, your choice just won’t matter that much. And second, the historical record of approval ratings is a little richer. Pollsters take them somewhat more often than favorability ratings, using somewhat more consistent question wording, and these ratings are archived more completely than the favorability ratings are. So approval ratings tend to be used as a default in studies of the presidency. What I’ll offer here is only some cursory evidence: a comparison of approval ratings and favorability ratings for the past five incumbent presidents who were running for re-election, as taken from the CBS News poll database (most CBS News polls were conducted in conjunction with The New York Times). Five data points isn’t very many, but using both approval ratings and favorability ratings from the same polling organization at least allows for the comparisons to be a bit more apples-to-apples. In the table below, I’ve listed the average net approval ratings and net favorability ratings for each of these presidents, in CBS News polls conducted from Sept. 1 of the election year through Election Day. These are listed alongside the results of the election. Three of these presidents — Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush — had nearly identical approval ratings and favorability ratings. But they diverged by a material amount in two other cases. In 1996, Bill Clinton’s approval ratings (roughly plus 25) were quite a bit stronger than his favorability ratings (roughly plus 14). He won a perfectly solid victory over Bob Dole, but the 8.5-point margin was somewhat more consistent with his pretty good favorability ratings than his very good approval ratings. Consider that Mr. Clinton in 1996 had roughly identical approval ratings to Ronald Reagan in 1984 — but Mr. Reagan’s margin over Walter Mondale was much larger than Mr. Clinton’s over Mr. Dole, perhaps because Mr. Reagan’s favorability ratings matched his lofty approval ratings while Mr. Clinton’s did not. In 1980, Jimmy Carter had bad approval ratings (negative 14 net), but somewhat more forgivable favorability ratings (negative 6). His 10-point loss to Mr. Reagan roughly split the difference between them. There are a few other wrinkles to consider that complicate the analysis. For instance, presidents with very strong or very weak approval ratings tend to have election results that are a little closer to the mean. A president with a plus-40 approval rating isn’t likely to win the election by as many as 40 points. When his ratings are that strong, many of the voters approving him will be of the opposite party, and some of those opposite-party voters will wind up for their party’s own nominee out of partisan loyalty. Ordinarily, the more robust way to analyze this data would be with regression analysis. In this case — with two highly correlated measures tested upon just five data points — regression analysis is not a very powerful tool. Still, I ran those numbers for fun and got an interesting result: Note that the regression coefficient on the approval ratings and favorability ratings is almost exactly the same. What that means is that the best policy in these past elections would simply have been to weight them equally. If you take an average of Mr. Obama’s approval ratings and his favorability ratings right now, based on the Real Clear Politics numbers, you will get a positive rating (approve or favorable) from 48.7 percent of voters, and a negative one (disapprove or unfavorable) from 46.9 percent. The net rating — plus 1.8 percent — almost exactly matches his current standing against Mr. Romney. The Real Clear Politics average of head-to-head polls has Mr. Obama with a 2-point lead on Mr. Romney, while our “now-cast” (which is based only on the polls and does not look at economic factors) has Mr. Obama projected to a 2.1-point lead. Let me emphasize, again, that although this analysis produces a neat-looking result, it’s based on some relatively thin evidence — really just two presidential elections (1980 and 1996) where the two sets of ratings diverged to any appreciable degree. Check back in 2040 or so, and we might be able to answer more definitively which set of ratings has more predictive power, or whether the method of averaging them together is the most sensible choice. Still, it seems as though the small set of voters who take a favorable view of Mr. Obama but do not approve of his job performance are very much worth fighting over for the campaigns. The split between the two sets of ratings may reflect a sensible enough reaction from voters, who have ample reason to be dissatisfied with the direction of the country, but may be more sympathetic to Mr. Obama as some of the problems began before his tenure. If you’re part of Mr. Obama’s campaign, there could be risk in taking a negative tack that might reduce that sympathy factor. At the same time, these results suggest that Mr. Obama doesn’t necessarily need to damage Mr. Romney to win. If voters are judging Mr. Obama based on a mix of his personal qualities and their perception of his job performance, his numbers might be just strong enough to win as it is, without their factoring much about Mr. Romney into their decision. Mr. Romney’s campaign in Boston faces an equally interesting set of choices. Do you explicitly try to appeal to the set of voters who like Mr. Obama personally but take a neutral or negative view of his job performance? There have been times when Mr. Romney’s campaign seemed to adopt this strategy. At times on the campaign trail, Mr. Romney has told voters that he thinks of Mr. Obama as a good man, but that he is just not up to the job of being president. Or do you try to bring down Mr. Obama’s favorability ratings by a couple of points? This is more in line with the advertisement that Mr. Romney’s campaign released on Thursday, which accuses Mr. Obama of dishonesty in how he portrayed Mr. Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. That strategy seems a bit higher risk — especially as Mr. Romney’s favorability ratings are rather tepid, meaning that he does not necessarily want to give voters an excuse to think of the election as a popularity contest. However, Mr. Obama may be slightly stronger than his approval ratings imply, if not as strong as his favorability ratings suggest. In that case, a higher-risk strategy might be called for, particularly if the small lead Mr. Obama has in head-to-head polls seems to persist for another several weeks. Obama will win the election – approval trends correlateSilver 7/11 (Silver, Nate, runs Five Thirty Eight NY Times Blog, 07/11/12, Five Thirty Eight NY Times Blog, July 11: Has Anything Changed in the Presidential Race?, http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/july-11-has-anything-changed-in-the-presidential-race/) On the surface, Wednesday seemed to be a pretty good polling day for President Obama. The latest five state polls, including those in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, showed him ahead of Mitt Romney by a margin of at least six points. But our presidential forecast was unmoved – literally. It gives Mr. Obama a 66.1 percent chance of being re-elected, exactly the same number as on Tuesday. Why no change? The reason is pretty simple: the polls were broadly in line with the model’s previous expectations, which had Mr. Obama as a seven-point favorite in Wisconsin, for instance, and five points ahead in Pennsylvania. There were also polls out in Maine and New Mexico, states that sometimes get talked up as battlegrounds, but really aren’t. The model already had Mr. Obama ahead by 14 points and by 12 points in those states. Mr. Obama should be pleased with Wednesday’s polls in one sense. The polls no more than match the model’s expectations. But the model has Mr. Obama a little bit ahead in the national race, putting him up by around two points in the popular vote over Mr. Romney and projecting him to 294 electoral votes to Mr. Romney’s 244. In other words, Wednesday’s polling was consistent with the hypothesis that a Mr. Obama has a small lead in the race. That contrasts with national, but not necessarily state, polls on Tuesday that seemed to show more of a straight-up tie. Obama Win – Electoral VotesObama will win – already has 265 electoral votes, will win MichiganMarshall 7-20 (John, Talking Points Memo Editors' Blog, Virginia is the Prize, lexisnexis, dw: 7-20-2012, da: 7-21-2012) You can't draw a lot from a single poll. But today's Quinnipiac poll showing Romney and Obama dead even in Virginia pushed it back into toss-up territory in the TPM Electoral Scoreboard. And I flag it now because for a while now I've thought that Virginia is the pivotal state in this year's election. Obama can definitely win without Virginia. Not by a lot. But he can win. Our Scoreboard currently shows Obama with 265 electoral votes at least loosely in his column with Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Colorado as toss-ups. Toss in Michigan and he's got it. So it's not so much that Obama has to win Virginia. It's more that it's very hard for me to see how Obama loses if he does win Virginia. Here's my basic argument. I'm pretty confident that Obama will win Michigan both because it's been a blue state for 20 years and because of the Romney/auto bailout issue, although at the moment the PollTracker Average gives him a mere 1 point edge. The key to the last three presidential cycles is that you've got to win Ohio or Florida and probably both to win the presidency. In both 2000 and 2004 it all came down to Bush eking out victories in those two states. Both continue to look extremely tight this year -- with Florida basically dead-even for months and Ohio only slightly leaning to Obama. But if Obama wins Virginia he can lose both Florida and Ohio and he'll almost certainly still going to win. Another way of putting it is that Virginia is one state where 2008 really seemed to change the map rather than just being another state -- like Indiana, for instance -- that just got swept up in the tide. My sense is that the demography of the state really has passed a tipping point. And the economy in the state is relatively strong. So I think Obama still has a very solid shot. But for my money, Virginia really is the state to watch. Obama Win – Halloway PredictionObama will win – Holloway’s predictionMctague 7-21 (Jim, staff, Barrons, Sharp Trader: Obama Will Win, http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111904346504577532810034930738.html?mod=BOL_twm_col, dw: 7-21-2012, da: 7-21-2012, lido) I'm jealous. Over the years, my election predictions have proven no better than a coin-toss. Quantitative trader Reid Holloway, on the other hand, has called the actual electoral-vote outcome of three of the four past presidential elections. Roll over, Ty Cobb: If Holloway's 2012 prediction holds up, then he'll be batting .800. What's on Holloway's magic viewing screen? The trader, who operates quietly from Litchfield County, Conn., foresees an Obama victory, with 325 electoral votes for the incumbent versus 213 for GOP challenger Mitt Romney. Holloway doesn't relish the outcome; he favors Romney-style self reliance over Obama's Big Government. But Holloway's computer model tells him Obama's victory is all but inevitable. Holloway's election formula is based on one he developed to predict market volatility among the S&P 500's market segments. The market formula is a key tool for Holloway's proprietary trading firm, which is in the sub-$100 million size group. Each market segment has a mean volatility. When a segment's volatility moves to an extreme, his model flags it and predicts when it will revert to its norm. Holloway's political model breaks the national presidential contest into 50 unique state elections. Each state has a philosophical mean. But sometimes a state will shift sharply either to the right or the left. This happened, for example, in 2008, when voters of all political leanings expressed their disdain for President George W. Bush by voting enthusiastically for Obama. Holloway's model measures these mood changes and predicts when a particular state will revert to its political norm. Obama Win – LatinosWill Win – Latino votesAmerican Prospect Blogs 7-18 (Obama's Successful Play for Latino Votes, lexisnexis, dw: 7-18-2012, da: 7-21-2012, lido) President Obama can’t win re-election without high support and turnout from Latino voters, and to that end he has aggressively targeted them with ads, speeches, and one bold attempt to unilaterally reform immigration policy as it applies to the children of undocumented immigrants. If the latest poll from Latino Decisions is any indication, this strategy is working. Since June, Obama s Latino support has risen 4 points to 70 percent, while Mitt Romney s support has declined to 22 percent of Latino voters: The poll, commissioned by the Center for American Progress and America s Voice, which advocates for immigration reform, finds Obama with a substantial lead over Romney in all segments of the Latino electorate. He wins 60 percent of Latino independents, 72 percent of Latinos who voted in the 2008 election, and 71 percent of Latinos in battleground states. He even wins 13 percent of Latino Republicans, compared to only 9 percent of Republicans overall. Here s a full chart of the results: Obama Win – Swing StatesObama will win – he is ahead in the swing states.US Daily Review 7-21 (“ Super Professor Predicts 2012 Presidential Winner” lexisnexis, dw: 7-21-2012, da: 7-21-2012, lido) FacultyRow Super Professor David Schultz predicted today that President Obama will win a re-election by securing between 272 to 300 electoral votes. (He needs 270 to win). Schultz places the odds of a President Obama re-election at 55%. Professor Schultz is known during election time for his expertise in U.S. elections. Currently a professor at Hamline University, Schultz has accurately predicted U.S. Presidents for the past 5 elections. Super Professor Schultz has also authored Politainment: The Ten Rules of Contemporary Politics: A citizens guide to understanding campaigns and elections. According to Schultz, the presidential race comes down to three simple numbers: 10, 10, 270. The presidential race is essentially over in 40 states, with the race for the presidency to be determined by the swing voters in ten states. In those ten states, ten percent of the voters are undecided and they will determine who wins the presidency with 270 electoral votes. Thus, ten percent of the voters in these ten states will determine who gets 270 electoral votes. Schultz says Barack Obama is currently holding on to slight but steady leads in many of the swing states, doing a better job than Mitt Romney in convincing swing voters to support him. Obama will win – represents “the people’s” position, ahead in swing statesTomasky 7-15 (Michael, Newsweek/Daily Beast correspondent and editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, Michael Tomasky: Obama Is Winning Because of the Shrinking GOP, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/15/michael-tomasky-obama-is-winning-because-of-the-shrinking-gop.html, dw: 7-15-2012, da: 7-21-2012, lido) Mitt Romney’s present travails must surely seem shocking and offensive to Republicans, both panjandrums and rank and file alike: “His is a great American success story. How can this be bad? The controversy must be all the fault of that evil liberal media and the Democrat Party!” Well, folks, sorry, but it’s not. If you’re willing to spend two minutes scouring the landscape for explanations rather than enemies, it might strike you that outsourcing is a real issue in American life—millions of citizens have been affected by it, and by definition, none of them for the better. That the ongoing Bain saga is such a shock and outrage to conservatives shows me only that conservatives are profoundly out of touch with the moderate center of the country: It helps explain why you selected this man as your nominee, and it further helps explain why he’s losing to an incumbent who, given the current economic conditions, ought to be pretty easy to take out. Supporters stand in 100-degree temperatures to listen to President Barack Obama speak at a campaign event on the College of Fine Arts Lawn at Carnegie Mellon University July 5, 2012 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images) The race is close, and of course Romney has a decent shot at winning. But the fact is that by every measure, he’s behind. He’s behind, a little, in national polls. He’s behind by more in the swing states. And behind by still more in the electoral college conjectures, where Nate Silver gives Obama 294 votes. Obama leads—narrowly, but outside the margin of error—in Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada. If he wins those and holds the usual Democratic states—and yes, he’s up in Pennsylvania, where Romney has been sinking fast; only Michigan is really close—he will have won, even with maybe $1.5 billion thrown at him, a not-particularly close election. Election is a Dead HeatThe election is a dead heat --- trending toward Romney.The Hill, 7/16/2012 (Poll: Obama and Romney neck-and-neck in swing states, p. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/238209-poll-obama-and-romney-neck-and-neck-in-swing-states) President Obama and Mitt Romney are running neck-and-neck in 12 swing states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the 2012 election, according to a Purple Insights poll released on Monday. Obama won Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin in 2008, and will need to win about half of these in 2012 to secure reelection. According to Purple, Obama leads Romney 47 to 45 percent in these 12 states, maintaining the same 2-point lead he had in the same poll from June, when he led 48 to 46. The poll has a 1.6 percent margin of error. Romney has been dogged by low favorability ratings throughout the election cycle, and that trend continues, according to the Purple Poll, with 49 percent saying they have an unfavorable view of the former Massachusetts governor, versus 41 percent favorable. But there’s bad news for Obama in the swing states as well – 42 percent said the economy was getting worse, against only 28 percent who said it was getting better. Obama Lose – EconomyObama will lose --- unemployment numbers will crush Obama.CNN Money, 7/19/2012 (Election 2012: Economy does Obama no favors, p. http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/19/news/economy/obama-election/) Unless the economy mounts a dramatic turnaround, President Obama will be forced to ask voters for a second term while the unemployment rate sits north of 8%. Any campaign consultant will tell you that's bad news for the incumbent -- and it could get worse. Robust labor market growth in the first three months of the calendar year has given way to three consecutive disappointing jobs reports. The housing market remains tied in knots. And growth is depressingly weak. Europe is mired in an intractable debt crisis that shows few signs of easing. At home, the impending fiscal cliff has the potential to unsettle businesses to the point where they are reluctant to make investments or hiring decisions. The resulting economic outlook -- especially from the Obama campaign's perspective -- is not especially rosy. With only four monthly jobs reports remaining before Election Day, it now seems unlikely that unemployment will drop below 8%. The current unemployment rate is 8.2%. Patrick Sims, a director at Hamilton Place Strategies, said that getting below 8.0% is "not going to happen" by Election Day. Poor job reports will undermine Obama’s election chances --- he needs to improve the economic conditions.Epshteyn, 7/18/2012 (Boris – Republican political strategist, investment banker and finance attorney living in New York City, Obama’ Can’t Distract Voters From the Flagging Economy, U.S. News & World Report, p. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/boris-epshteyn/2012/07/18/obama-cant-distract-voters-from-the-flagging-economy) Much of the country has been in successive heat waves for the past month, while President Obama and his campaign have experienced a continued pesky cold streak. Not even a victory in the Supreme Court over Obamacare could shake them out of the doldrums. Why? Because the Obamacare decision was followed by a jobs report a week later containing nothing even close to good news. That jobs report was vital because if it had showed economic improvement, it would have given the Obama campaign something to build momentum on. Instead, it served as a reminder to the American voter that while President Obama may have won in the Supreme Court on healthcare he is losing in the fight for economic recovery. Team Obama's response? First, President Obama asked the American public to not "read too much into" the jobs report. I will let the Labor Department address the ridiculousness of that statement. Second, the Obama campaign unleashed a furious ad onslaught. The advertising push however, was not focused on any of the president's accomplishments (Obamacare obviously didn't fit the bill due to its unpopularity), but on the business background of former Gov. Mitt Romney. Whether one believes the attacks are fair or not, and in my humble opinion they are misguided, the bigger issue for team Obama is that they simply do not work. A quick glance at Real Clear Politics's average of polls shows that on the day after the Obamacare decision, President Obama led Governor Romney by 3.8 percent, whereas the lead now is down to an insignificant 2.0 percent—a statistical tie. The numbers in battleground states also generally mirror the national average and stay within the margin of error. President Obama and his team have, notwithstanding his claims otherwise to Charlie Rose, abandoned any notion of "transcendence" or "hope and change" and in return have received nothing but bad polls. There are four more jobs reports before the election on November 6. The economic community tends to agree that they will not be much better than the last. However, in order to have a shot at re-election, President Obama would be well served to make sure that his response is much improved. Obama Lose – Economy Romney is gaining the lead over the economy.The Hill, 7/18/2012 (Romney edges ahead in latest national poll, most blame Obama for economic downturn, p. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/238823-romney-edges-ahead-in-latest-national-poll-most-blame-obama-for-economic-downturn) Mitt Romney holds a narrow lead over Barack Obama in the latest national poll, with the Republican challenger edging the incumbent president 47-46 percent. And nearly two in three voters - 64 percent - say his policies have contributed at least partially to the economic downturn, according to a survey released Wednesday by CBS News and the New York Times. That's evidence that Republican attacks on the president's record are likely resonating, and represent a double-digit increase from a similar question asked by Gallup last month. In general, Romney seemed to be buoyed by American's increasing pessimism about the economy. Less than a quarter of those surveyed said the economy was improving — 24 percent — down from a third of Americans in April. Meanwhile, three in 10 Americans say the economy is getting worse, and fewer than four in 10 approve of President Obama's handling on the economy. Perhaps most concerning for the president, the presumptive Republican nominee now holds a 49-41 percent advantage among voters asked who would best handle the economy, Economy prevents Obama from winningCafferty 7/19 (Cafferty, Jack, CNN reporter, 07/19/12, CNN, Should the Economy prevent President Obama from winning a second term, http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/19/should-the-economy-prevent-president-obama-from-winning-a-second-term/?hpt=hp_t2) Storm clouds are gathering for President Barack Obama. The latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows Mitt Romney with a 1-point lead over Obama with 4% of voters undecided. And when asked about the economy, the difference is even more glaring. Romney holds an 8 percentage point lead over the president. Just 39% of those surveyed approve of the president's handling of the economy. That's down from 44% in April. More bad news for the president: In the crucial battleground of Virginia, Romney has closed a 12-point gap with Obama, and the two are now tied, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll. In 2008, Obama became the first Democrat to win that state since 1964. Suffice to say that if there is no significant improvement in the economy - and it better start soon - Obama could have problems in Virginia and elsewhere. The jobs picture remains bleak. Unemployment has been above 8% for 41 consecutive months now. Forty-one months. This morning, first-time jobless claims jumped sharply - up 34,000 from the previous week. A new Gallup Poll shows Americans overwhelmingly say creating "more or better jobs" is the most important thing the government can do to jump-start the economy. That’s why some of the president's words and actions aren't helping much. Many took issue when Obama said, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Then there's the president's "jobs council." It hasn't even met for six months. The White House says Obama has "obviously got a lot on his plate" while Republicans suggest he's had time in the past six months to attend more than 100 fundraisers and play golf 10 times. Obama Lose – Latino TurnoutLow Hispanic voter turnout jeopardizes Obama’s election.Carrasquillo 7-13 Adrian Carasquillo NBC Latino Online. “Latinos, youth not as excited about voting in 2012 election” http://nbclatino.com/2012/07/13/latinos-youth-not-as-excited-about-voting-in-2012-election/ President Obama may have a lot to worry about if a new poll on voting intentions ends up reflecting voter turnout in November. According to a Gallup poll released today, only 64 percent of registered Latino voters say they will definitely vote this fall, which is 14 percent lower than the current national average of 78 percent of Americans. In the fall of 2008, Hispanic turnout intentions were eight points below the national average. If the voting intentions were to hold, Hispanic voters would be one of the groups with the lowest expected turnout, along with 18- to 29-year-olds. Fifty-eight percent of U.S. registered voters aged 18 to 29 say they will “definitely vote” this fall, well below the current national average. If turnout among Latinos and young voters is low, Obama’s chances at reelection will suffer, as they make up two important parts of his expected coalition. Recently, the battle over quantifying the state of the Latino vote broke out into the open, as polls which came out on the same day, had differing breakdowns for Obama and Romney. A Quinnipiac poll said Romney had seen gains among Hispanics, registering at 30 percent support for the first time, but experts told NBC Latino the poll had a number of problems. Later, the Pew Research Center came out with their poll which showed Obama at 65 percent support and Romney at 25 percent. Gallup says its voting intention scale is just one of seven items it uses to assess the likelihood to vote in its complete likely voter model, so they will have a better idea of voter intentions in the fall. Romney Win – FundraisersRomney is ahead in fund raising --- will win him the election.The Portland Press Herald, 7/10/2012 (Election 2012: President trails Romney in June fundraising sum, p. http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/president-trails-romney-in-june-fundraising-sum_2012-07-10.html) President Obama has fallen behind Republican Mitt Romney in monthly fundraising totals and may now be the underdog in the 2012 money race, given the juggernaut he faces of conservative groups with unlimited contributions at their disposal. The trend has set off at least a mild sense of panic at the Obama campaign, which warned donors on Monday: "We will get beat if this continues." The Romney campaign announced Monday that it raised an eye-popping $106 million last month in conjunction with the Republican National Committee, compared with just $71 million announced by Obama and the Democratic National Committee. The gap, at $35 million, is wider than it was in May, when Romney and his party allies raised $17 million more than the Democratic side. The momentum shift marks a change in fortunes for Obama, whose 2008 victory was propelled by a breathtaking fundraising operation that brought in $745 million by Election Day, much of it fueled by grass-roots donations. In September 2008 alone, Obama and the DNC brought in $193 million. Romney Win – Likely VotersRomney will win – has an edge from likely poll voters.Silver 7/19 (Silver, Nate, runs the Five Thirty Eight NY Times Blog, 07/19/12, Five Thirty Eight, Does Romney have an edge from likely voter polls, http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/does-romney-have-an-edge-from-likely-voter-polls/) Is Mitt Romney’s position more advantageous than some polls imply? That’s what Mark Blumenthal of The Huffington Post suggested in a column on Wednesday. He noted that many of the polls out now were conducted among registered voters. But when pollsters switch over to likely voter models, which account for their estimate of how likely each respondent in the survey is to vote, as the election draws closer, they may be expected to show slightly more favorable results for Mr. Romney, enough to potentially matter in a close election. I mostly agree with Mr. Blumenthal. In fact, our forecast model builds in a “likely voter adjustment” — it is already shifting those registered voter polls a bit toward Mr. Romney. But it would also be possible to overestimate how much difference this might make. In the past six presidential election years, the shift to likely voter models has always helped the Republican candidate, but the difference has also always been small, usually amounting to a net of one or two percentage points in the margin between the two candidates. Romney Win – MomentumRomney is gaining momentum on Obama.The Hill, 7/19/2012 (Overnight Campaign: New message, new momentum, p. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/other-races/239087-overnight-campaign-new-message-new-momentum) TOP STORY: Romney building a campaign message off Obama’s building remark Mitt Romney appears to be gaining some traction with his latest campaign message: hammering President Obama over the president's suggestion that the success of private enterprises are dependent on public infrastructure and programs. Republicans have seized on a moment during a town-hall speech last week where Obama, discussing infrastructure like roads and highways, argued that "if you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." Romney Winning Swing StatesRomney winning most swing states – mainstream polls wrongChambers 7/16 (Dean Chambers, an Internet journalist and commentator on Examiner.com, 7.16.12, Clarity Digital Group, LLC, http://www.examiner.com/article/mitt-romney-leads-most-key-swing-states) Romney actually leads in most of the key swing states, but that might not be indicated in some of the polls and projections done by or based on those done by the mainstream media. But an analysis of the best available polling data indicates a Romney lead in most of those states. Many of the mainstream media polls are showing results favoring President Obama overall and in swing states. Often these polls are inaccurate because they survey registered voters rather than more statistically reliable method of polling likely voters, and often they over sample Democrat voters. The recent Washington Post/ABC News poll sampled voters on a faulty assumption that Republican voters make up just 24 percent of the electorate when Rasmussen's very accurate and exhaustive surveying indicates that 35.4 percent of the electorate are Republicans. AT: Gay MarriageEconomic issues outweighs gay marriage --- it’s a low priority for voters.Polman, 5/16/2012 (Dick – staff writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, Op-ed: Gay marriage no longer a hot-button issue, North Iowa Today, p. http://www.northiowatoday.com/?p=20640) To borrow a phrase from the poet T.S. Eliot, it’s likely that the gay marriage issue will impact the 2012 presidential race not with a bang, but a whimper. Barack Obama’s seven historic words (“same-sex couples should be able to get married”) would have been unthinkable just eight years ago, and that’s the point. Full equality for gay people is the new normal. It’s the majority sentiment in the polls, a trend that will only strengthen with time. As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” There has been much commentary, these past few days, about how the president’s remarks were politically risky, especially in an election year. I disagree. Obama felt comfortable coming out on gay marriage after calculating that such a stance carried little political risk. Granted, social and religious conservatives will be energized by his remarks, to the point where they’ll squelch their qualms about Mitt Romney. But the same is true on the left side of the spectrum. Obama’s liberal base is just as likely to shake off its disappointment in Obama and hail him for taking a giant step into the 21st century. The people who care most fervently about the gay marriage issue, pro and con, will probably cancel each other out at the ballot box. And these fervent folks are only a small percentage of the electorate. The vast majority of voters, while increasingly willing to accept married gays in their midst, don’t even care about the issue. It barely registers on their list of priorities. Gallup poll editor Frank Newport wrote Thursday: “We ask Americans to name the most important problem facing the country. Two-thirds mentioned some aspect of the economy. Less than 1 percent specifically mentioned issues relating to gay rights or gay marriage.” That’s no surprise. If Obama goes down, it won’t be because he voiced personal support for marriage equality. What matters this year are the kitchen-table issues, not the specter of gay spouses at neighboring kitchen tables. The very fact that so few people take umbrage is itself stark evidence of social progress. October Surprise – Iran Strikes Cause Obama to LoseIsrael will attack Iran before the election --- causes Obama to lose.Ezzatyar, 3/8/2012 (Ali – contributor to The Reaction, director of the steering committee to establish the Berkeley Program of Entrepreneurship and Democracy in the Middle East, An October Surprise: Will Israel Attack Iran?, The Moderate Voice, p. http://themoderatevoice.com/140939/an-october-surprise-will-israel-attack-iran/) To the contrary, and more importantly, this is the most temperate climate for an Israeli attack on Iran we have seen. There are some obvious reasons, such as unprecedented Iranian isolation, Iran’s reportedly nearing critical stages in its nuclear development, and recent accusations of assassinations of Israelis abroad. But there is something much more profound from an Israeli perspective. A plurality of Israelis believe that Barack Obama is the least Israel-friendly president in American history. They harbor suspicions about his intentions in the region and generally believe he may abandon Israel in ways unprecedented to presidents before him. An attack on Iran this year is unquestionably dangerous to Obama’s reelection. There is no scenario where a unilateral attack by Israel will not hurt Obama’s chances. We probably do not need to discuss how a failed attack, the most likely scenario of a unilateral Israeli strike according to most analysts, would be disastrous for U.S. interests and the president personally. But even a successful Israeli attack would wreak havoc on financial markets, on American interests in the region, and portray Obama as a man with no control over a key region for U.S. interests. This is the most likely scenario for an unlikely Republican win in November 2012. Even if the American public is critical of an Israeli strike, the hawkish Republican candidate-turned-president, who has been distinguishing himself all year long on the principle of being forceful with Iran, comes to power with Israel’s interests in mind. It is win-win for Israel. If Israel waits long enough to ensure there is no sanction from an Obama administration for its attacking Iran, but not until after the elections themselves, it can both perform an operation it has been planning for years, and one which it sees as vital to its long-term survival, while supplanting the president of its largest benefactor that it wants to see gone anyway. Could Israel be planning an October, or perhaps August / September surprise? It wouldn’t be the first time Iran has been used to win a U.S. election. (Remember this one?) The odds of an Israeli attack on Iran are the highest they have been in ten years. Iran strikes would be an overwhelming political loss for Obama.Herz, 4/2/2012 (Douglas - , If Israel Attacks Iran, Obama Loses Presidency, American Thinker, p. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/04/if_israel_attacks_iran_obama_loses_presidency.html) Much controversy has arisen recently about the Obama administration leaking details of Israel's planned raid on Iranian nuclear sites by using Azerbaijan as a staging area. The reason for the leaks is simple: if Israel attacks Iran, Obama will lose the presidential election this fall, and BHO will do anything to prevent that from happening. If Israel were to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear weapons capability, Iran would retaliate by attempting to close the Strait of Hormuz as it has often threatened. The U.S. Fifth Fleet patrolling the area would likely be called upon to keep the Strait open, and expanded American military involvement in the region could not be ruled out. World oil and financial markets would be roiled. Israel would be hit with a barrage of rockets and international condemnations. And relations with strategic competitors such as China and Russia would hit the deep freeze. President Obama would have many 3AM telephone calls to deal with. But the real pain for Obama would come from the political price he would pay as Americans saw gasoline prices skyrocket (again), dead and wounded U.S. soldiers and sailors coming home from the Middle East (again), plummeting financial markets (again), possible terror attacks on U.S. soil (again), and internet disruptions from Iranian cyberwar. No president could survive politically from such a series of calamities. Thus president Obama is desperate to delay any Israeli attack on Iran until after the November elections, even to the extent of foiling Israel's near-term military plans. October Surprise – Iran Strikes Cause Obama to WinIsraeli attack will cause Obama to win the election riding a wave of patriotism.Bulliet, 2/16/2012 (Richard – Professor of History at Columbia University, Bomb Iran, Elect Obama, Middle East Online, p. http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=50696) An Israeli attack on Iran sometime this spring would be an unmitigated disaster. If it should occur, however, it could ensure President Barack Obama’s reelection. Shouldn't Republican election strategists, therefore, be urging Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to hold its fire? On April 24, 1980, an attempt to rescue the Americans being held hostage by Iran failed dismally. President Jimmy Carter bore the burden of the debacle, which contributed greatly to his defeat at the polls later that year. Yet if the rescue had succeeded, Carter probably would have won reelection. A gutsy presidential decision and the successful completion of a difficult mission would have enthralled the American public, Obama’s operation against Osama bin Laden’s Pakistani hideout on May 2, 2011, produced precisely this effect. President Obama will not initiate a war with Iran during the coming year. President George W. Bush attacked Iraq on the supposition that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of WMD. Bush was wrong, and his decision to go to war weighed heavily in the minds of the voters who put Obama in office. Unless Iran tests a nuclear device, Obama will avoid following Bush’s example. An unprovoked preemptive attack would lose him the support of his liberal base. A unilateral Israeli attack, however, could be an election opportunity. If the Iranians respond only against Israeli targets, Obama will surely weigh in diplomatically on the Israeli side. But American military action would hinge on the exact nature of the Iranian counterstrike. Rocketing by Hezbullah and Hamas, for example, would challenge the United States less than a ballistic missile attack directly from Iran. But what if Iran attacked American targets, most probably naval forces in the Persian Gulf? It is next to certain that Obama would order devastating retaliation against Iranian air defenses and naval targets. The Osama bin Laden raid and subsequent operations against Somali pirates have shown this side of Obama. Under the threat of a major American counterstrike, why would Iran respond to a unilateral Israeli attack by going after the US Navy? Three reasons: First, Iranian leaders have said that Tehran would interpret an attack by Israel as an attack by the United States. They believe that no Israeli attack is possible without American foreknowledge and tacit support. This is consonant with the Iranian belief that Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980 at the behest of the Americans. Second, American targets are more abundant than Israeli ones. Missiles launched from Iran or lobbed over the border by Iranian proxies are likely to do little damage to Israel. American military targets are much easier to find and offer the hope of a spectacular victory if a major US ship is sunk, as well as boots-on-the-deck derring-do to stoke Iranian patriotism. Third, an Iranian response against a US target, followed by a massive American counterstrike, would generate enormous patriotic support for Obama. Americans would see it as payback, at long last, for the hostage crisis. As a result, Obama would cruise to reelection. And a second Obama term in office would be much more attractive to the Iranian government than a shift to a more ardently pro-Israeli Republican administration. Iran could hope that a second term Obama with proven military credentials would be more likely to negotiate war issues than an incoming Republican president eager to show his muscle. From a Republican perspective, a powerful American response to an Iranian attack on a US naval vessel is the worst possible outcome of a unilateral Israeli strike. Obama would be reelected, and no one could accuse him of not standing up for America. The book October Surprise published by Dr. Gary Sick in 1991 argued that the Reagan presidential campaign secretly conspired with the Iranian government to ensure that the embassy hostages would not be released until Jimmy Carter left office. Though most reviewers dismissed the theory, the logic behind it still applies. Republican foreign policy specialists would be well advised to confidentially press the Israelis to hold off attacking until there is a Republican president. This assumes that the Israeli leadership would prefer a Republican to four more years of Obama. Here, then, is the dilemma for the three parties. Iran should logically plan on attacking US assets if Israel strikes before the presidential election. This would trigger an American counterstrike but gain Iran a potentially reasonable bargaining partner in a lame duck Obama second term. If Israel strikes unilaterally after an Obama electoral victory, however, Iran should avoid retaliating against the United States. This might forestall an American military response. For Israel, the choice is between attacking soon and living with four more years of Obama, or waiting until the election in hopes of a more supportive Republican presidency. A Democratic victory, of course, would make the wait seem in vain. From an American perspective, an Israeli attack before the election should be seen as an opportunity. If Iran strikes American targets in response, Obama counterattacks and rides to electoral victory on a wave of American patriotic feeling. An Israeli attack after an Obama re-election, on the other hand, would allow the United States to take more measured countermeasures so as to improve the post-attack negotiating climate. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.8 Mb. Share with your friends:
|